Good news is that this is really easy to fix. Just do it quickly.
A priest resigned this month after his diocese announced that thousands of baptisms he had performed were invalid because he had changed a single word. He said, “We baptize you … ,” instead of “I baptize you … .”
“It is with sincere pastoral concern that I inform the faithful that baptisms performed by Reverend Andres Arango, a priest of the Diocese of Phoenix, are invalid,” Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix said in a letter last month.
“This determination was made after careful study by diocesan officials and through consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome,” he wrote.
Arango said, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” instead of “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
“The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Olmsted said.
The greater power that I believe in isn’t caught up in this type of semantics bullshit… this is Leroy’s bread and butter, not an omnipotent being (of which Leroy is the farthest from). I simply could not imagine that St Peter would be at the Pearly Gates saying to a 5 month old “Sorry, your priest screwed up when he said “We baptize you”… and pushes the down button on the elevator.
That is utterly ridiculous. The Catholic church had been making strides in modernizing and then they do this…
If Catholics suddenly believe in the literal word again, we can go back to the question of which Bible is literally correct again.
““The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Olmsted said.”
Where does the Bible say that priests are actual incarnations of Christ? Christ is using the priest as a conduit to baptize, but was shut out by the priest’s use of the word ‘we’? Why can’t ‘we’ mean the Catholic church? There are ways to make this go away without revoking baptisms. Why haven’t all the actions of all the catholic priest pedophiles been taken back too? Is the Catholic church trying to say that all those ungodly men were still incarnations of Christ at the same time, but this Priest’s actions are invalid because he was trying to follow the new creed of inclusiveness flowing through the Catholic church? It is a weird (and not positive) dissonance.
>“The issue with using ‘We’ is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes,” Olmsted said.
Seems likely that if Christ took this long to correct His representative’s verbiage, maybe He wasn’t at all concerned about it in the first place. Attempting to invalidate Christ’s work regarding thousands of infant baptismals is just silly. Somebody remind them who they work for.
Ceap, this is in my diocese. I guess those kids can do whatever they want until they get baptized again.
No wonder why there are so.many young heathens running around here.
Owen’s right: words matter. The sacrament(s)–to be valid and licit–MUST have a specific form and matter. You cannot ‘baptize’ with wine instead of water, and Christ is the actor here. (Yes, any layman MAY baptize in case of necessity but he MUST use the legitimate formula. That’s the exception to priest-as-Christ.)
This gets worse. All the marriages of all those kids have to be re-done.
The oath of office of the President cannot be in “alternative form,” nor that of armed forces members, nor that of citizenship in the US.
There are some things about which one simply can NOT be “eh, whatever.”
I wonder if the President changed a word in his oath of office that did not change the spirit, would he have to do it over? Or if some idjut did not repeat his armed forces oath exactly verbatim (but again the spirit was the same), could he make a case that he was never in the army…
I am firmly in the camp of ‘words matter’ fan overall so I can’t just jump on Catholics for this, but if the specific words/formula are not verbatim from say, the Bible, I think the spirit is important. Especially since if the ‘formula’ is directly from the Bible, is it okay to use words from different versions? Again, why I think the spirit (or the Spirit?) is important in religious rituals over specific words.
And on the topic of Words Matter: WTF is up with the Olympic Russian druggy getting to continue to compete!?! They will just delay her medals? The IOC, the USO, and WADA all recommend suspension, but then I heard on Peacock that the IOC said they needed to ‘follow the rule of law’ and listed 3 things. I only heard the first two and was so dumbfounded that I did not hear the last one.
1) She is underage at only 15. (So illegal drugs are okay if you are underage?)
2) The timing of the drug test was such that the Russians could not mount a defense. Isn’t that the definition of a good drug test?
How the hell is she still competing?
This is only matters to hard core Catholics.
I think the majority will think like Tuerqas while some will take it seriously.
At least those who were improperly baptized will get a second party for being baptized, being Confirmed and being married.
“How the hell is she still competing” Because the IOC or whoever don’t want to puss off the Russians when there might be a war anyway now.
Wait, I thought the invasion was supposed to start be today.
Putin is inside that empty skull of Biden.
T–there’s a lot which is not “in the Bible.” It’s called “tradition,” and that’s what is at play here. Most organized religions have and use “tradition”.
“Spirit” is–by no coincidence–a term used by a lot of Lefties, not just in religious context. Be careful with that.
I think you (actually Catholic priests) may need to be careful with the word tradition, by your words. Catholic ‘traditions’ came down through the eras of religious wars, the selling of forgiveness and worse. The idea that Catholics and other Christian religious faiths believe their TRADITIONS are the word of God even if they are not from the Bible or are based on literal verbiage found only in one or two versions is the thing to be careful with, in my opinion. Do Catholic traditionalists really believe that baptism can only be done with one specific set of words and to get a word wrong (that does not change the base meaning) means Christ did not sanction it? Personally I believe that smacks much more of catholic hierarchy hubris than the teachings of Christ.
Being stuck on the literal verbiage of mutable text is the greatest failure of the Christian religious faith, in my opinion. It is certainly the greatest divider of Christians. And to clarify before it is asked, by mutable text I mean the many translations of the Bible from the original ancient texts it is based on. And don’t even get me started on the fact that many popular Bibles today are re-worded versions of the King James Bible, rather than new translations of original manuscripts.
Some Catholic council meeting in the 400s decides to use a specific formula of non-biblical words for Catholic baptisms, maybe because some sects words have strayed pretty far is perfectly fine (and a good measure to take), but to then take the giant leap that those words are the only path to being truly baptized is certainly NOT the will of the trinity. It is the will of men attempting to harness power and control.
I can use ‘spirit’ and have entirely different meanings than any and virtually all lefties. if you think my using that word the way I did lumps me in with them, be a LOT more specific on why or don’t bring it up. Should I call you a lefty because the Catholic church has been progressing towards more modern beliefs in order to stay relevant and you believe in the tenets of Catholicism? In religion, any Catholic is a lot more lefty than my beliefs.
Catholic ‘social doctrine’ is NOT Libertarian, correct. Just as a corrective: Catholic tradition did NOT start during the 1000’s, 1400’s, or 1600’s (etc.) It started with the Apostles and hasn’t changed since, although there have been minor additions. Remember that Revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle–not in 600 when Mohammad created “new” revelations, nor during the Prot revolution(s) beginning with Luther.
Finally, please do not confuse ‘tradition’ with sin. You know better than that.
By the way, the “spirit” of marriage is maintained by Pete Buttplug and his husband……
And under the words matter department:
“Catholic ‘social doctrine’ is NOT Libertarian, correct.” I did not use the phrase social doctrine nor the term Libertarian and have no idea what you are trying to say.
“Catholic tradition did NOT start during the 1000’s, 1400’s, or 1600’s”. I mentioned the 400s, not even close to any of those dates. And I bet I am much closer to your ‘started with the Apostles’ with my date on when Catholic specific wordings were formalized. And of course many Catholic formulae have been changed many times over 2000 years. The resigning priest above wasn’t speaking in Latin.
I was referring to what I remember to be the most important of the ecumenical councils, though I could be wrong on exactly when the Catholic Church started to normalize their doctrines. I am 100% sure (and you already agreed) that the Apostles did not write the specifically worded traditions of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, they WOULD have literally been in the Bible.
Finally, I did not confuse sin with tradition, have you?
By the way, Catholics may believe that Pete’s marriage maintains the spirit of marriage, who knows. I don’t, nor did I state or imply it above or anywhere else, ever. Stop being a Le Roi and disputing straw men. Nothing you commented referred to anything I said, AT ALL. You made crap up and then responded to what you made up.
That’s it T, give ’em hell. But the discussion above is exactly why I don’t take religious zealots of any stripe too seriously. You two can’t agree on some minor facet of religious teaching.doctrine or whatever you want to call it . And an alleged ‘christian”, who believes, “”Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;…”, calls someone ” Pete Buttplug ” because ol dud doesn’t agree with his life style. A pox on all your hypocritical houses.
But don’t ever confuse me with dud. I still have an independent thought on occasion. As witnessed above, he strictly adheres to whatever teaching is convenient to whatever gibberish he is spouting on any given day.
You guys fight it out. It’s fun to watch folks argue so strongly about imaginary rules and regulations.
Leroy, It’s even more fun for anyone here to point out your idiocy and see you disappear from the discussion. You’re the biggest bitch that visits.
Le Roi, did you notice I asked him to stop being a le Roi? See, he does not usually resort to such low value debate tactics, but strawmen are your gold standard. I still wonder if you even know what that is, you have certainly never demonstrated it at this site.
Even on Catholicism, DAD does not mail in the commentary like you. He is generally well versed and willing to dig in to topics he is interested in and that includes religion. If he has a weakness it is that he has not always actually read the words of other commenters if he believes a specific comment is criticizing Catholicism. You don’t have a single topic of strength or conviction, not to mention independent thinking that I have witnessed, so not really any sort of confusion of you two. I have respect for one of you. As Jason mentioned, as soon as you are shown the falseness of your words, you just disappear. Based on your comment above, you have zero understanding of what we are discussing, so, just go away…again.
“But don’t ever confuse me with dud. I still have an independent thought on occasion.”
Umm, no, when have you ever had an independent thought?
I am 100% sure (and you already agreed) that the Apostles did not write the specifically worded traditions of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, they WOULD have literally been in the Bible.
You are 100% certain. Really? You mean that the Council of Trent did, in the 1500’s–in response to Luther? Or was it Nicea, around 325? Constantinople?
ALL those councils clarified Apostolic tradition–they did not make up new stuff.
There is a LOT which is not “literally in the Bible.” And switching from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to ……..whatever……….does not change the meaning of a given phrase.
Further, and far more important, Peter & Co. (and their successors) were specifically charged with running the Church; the ‘keys to the Kingdom’ thing that Christ said actually means something.
Now let’s get to your mis-statements of my argument. First: ‘religious wars’ and ‘selling indulgences’ occurred largely after 1000 AD. So my contention that ‘tradition’ did NOT start in 1000 or 1400 is correct in context of what you said above.
Second: the Catholic Church does not now, nor has she ever, taught that ‘traditions’ are the Word of God. They are not. Rather, they are ‘what has been handed down’ from the Apostles, but as such, they are considered to be authoritative. You can read a solid treatment of the baptismal formula here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25012121?seq=3#metadata_info_tab_contents–don't stop after the second page!! (Some traditions have to do with formulas such as the Baptism one; others have to do with doctrine or dogma.)
As to this: but to then take the giant leap that those words are the only path to being truly baptized is certainly NOT the will of the trinity . Yes and no. Aquinas is very clear that while God ‘binds Himself’ to the sacraments (baptism is one of them), He is not bound BY the sacraments. That is, God does what He wills, not what WE will. That said, prudent men take the safe path, in this case the formula used since the beginning.
Last: Granting that you’re a serious commenter–and you are–I must tell you that what YOU think about what the Church should or should not teach or say is………not relevant.
Before I go any further, do you believe that Catholics are the only Christians that go to heaven? If you do, this whole discussion is pointless. I believe that God accepts Christians of most every Christian faith. That is the position I argue from and any person I talk religion with needs to understand that. And if they believe their large or small sect of Christianity is the only way to get to heaven, I have to adjust my arguments accordingly. I thought I remembered that Catholics did not believe that, but now I am unsure, so please answer your and the Catholic position on that. Also, OF COURSE what I think the Catholic church should or should not do is irrelevant:). However, this is a blog with commentary. My opinion is merely my opinion and you can stop exchanging words with me at any time if your interests extend only to whether they will have an effect on what the Catholic church decides ever, they will not:).
2 quotes from you Dad29:
“(Yes, any layman MAY baptize in case of necessity but he MUST use the legitimate formula. That’s the exception to priest-as-Christ.)”
“There is a LOT which is not “literally in the Bible.” And switching from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to ……..whatever……….does not change the meaning of a given phrase.”
The whole point of this exchange was the Catholic Church’s contention that words matter versus my contention that the meaning (or the spirit of the meaning as I described it) matters. ‘I’ or ‘we’ does not change the base meaning of the baptismal words. It could easily be interpreted that if ‘we’ refers to the Catholic church as an institution, there is no difference at all. And even if ‘we’ meant his congregation, since any layman can do it, that is not really a change in meaning at all either (and from your quote that a layman cannot change words, one could infer that a Priest could). The second quote above proves my whole point that the meaning of the words is important not using every specific word that was Catholic approved at a council sometime in the last 2000 years. It does not defend the Catholic church’s decision to illegitimize all of that Priest’s baptisms based on a word disqualification because yes I am 100% sure that the words have changed over time. Aramaic, Greek and Latin do not translate exactly word for word into English and the councils met specifically to decide upon single determinations for the Catholic church’s use. That proves there were multiple opinions on meanings before the meeting, doesn’t it? They did not need councils to agree that everyone was doing it right, the same way.
Specifically, translations absolutely do change the meaning of words (hence dozens of versions and the Catholic Church does not have one Bible version only, so…contradictions), not to mention that your link talks about Catholic scholars disagreeing on “in the name”. Clarifying that sort of disagreement is a big part of what the councils have been about as I said first, above (thanks for agreeing). I said that the Catholic church decided upon one formula (I used the term normalize) specifically because different Catholic churches were performing them differently and probably some were quite a ways away from just exchanging I and we. As I also said earlier, that is a good thing to standardize/traditionalize such formulae, imo. And if Catholics believe that only Catholics go to heaven, end of discussion, I have nothing more to say. I was coming from the position that Baptists, Lutherans et al can also go to heaven without the Catholic formula. Therefore, the single wording formula to be baptized would not stop a person being baptized if the meaning was the same.
“Now let’s get to your mis-statements of my argument. First: ‘religious wars’ and ‘selling indulgences’ occurred largely after 1000 AD. So my contention that ‘tradition’ did NOT start in 1000 or 1400 is correct in context of what you said above.”
I understand what you are saying, and If all of your traditions were set prior to 1000, you are right and I am wrong. If your traditions began being normalized with the start of the ecumenical councils and are still continuing today, I think my statement is more accurate.
FWIW (I’m not a dogmatic theologian but Holiday Inn is my friend) God makes the decisions about who gets into Heaven. You can call that a punt if you like.
Is there a difference between “I” and “We”? Then how can you claim that either is just fine?
A layman MAY baptize in case of emergency and ALSO must use the “I”.
As to translations: the first person singular is distinct from the first person plural in English, Latin and Greek. I do not know with certainty about Hebrew and Aramaic, but I’m willing to bet it’s the same. Please feel free to prove otherwise.
That proves there were multiple opinions on meanings before the meeting, doesn’t it? And it ALSO proves that only ONE of those opinions was correct.
If all of your traditions were set prior to 1000, you are right and I am wrong
They were, and yes, you are wrong. But I still like you!
LOL, fair enough all around, and I have always liked discussing religion with you. I think of you as my expert on Catholicism precisely because of your knowledge and willingness to look into things I have had trouble with. Does the Catholic church have the official line that only God decides who gets into heaven? That is both pretty cool and basically what I remembered from very old conversations.
I wasn’t arguing that specifically ‘I and we’ are not distinct in translation, though in those old days ‘we’ was used as a singular for many important individuals as a case in point. I could swear you and I have had conversations where the Catholic church had changed positions on several topics over recent years, but that doesn’t necessarily mean any traditions were changed so I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject:).
Don’t worry, the current Pope will allow I, We, They and It when baptizing someone.
I suspect the Bishop of Phoenix did not contact the Holy See about this.
T, if you want a couple of excellent, concise, and useful books on Catholicism, buy Fr. John Hardon’s “Catechism” and his “Catholic Dictionary.” That said……….
Hardon, following Trent and Vatican II, says “Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water. Those who are not actually baptized may, nevertheless, be saved through the Church according to their faith in whatever historical revelation they come to know and in their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive.”
“On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the Catholic Church……….It is to this Church alone that Christ entrusted the truths of revelation which have by now, though often dimly, penetrated all the cultures of mankind.”
Simple, eh?
Hardon, following Trent and Vatican II, says “Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water. Those who are not actually baptized may, nevertheless, be saved through the Church according to their faith in whatever historical revelation they come to know and in their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive.”
I am not sure I agree with your interpretation, so yeah, simple. The first part is incorporation into the “Church”. Church does not equal going to heaven (words matter:). His second statement says “saved”, that is joining the House of God that gets you to heaven. He says ‘saved through the Church’, but I would have to see more context to know if he was speaking only of the Catholic Church. By his semantics, I would have said he was including multiple Christian ‘churches’, but I don’t know.
I have often wondered why the Catholic church has not had their own Bible translation for at least 1600 years. The multiple translations over the millennia really have changed a lot of meanings over the years and the Catholic leadership has put a lot of emphasis on wording in the past and as seen in this post, the present. King James slaughtered it for secular gain and the newer translations are liberalizing it in the name of inclusiveness. Things like I and we or unsexing God to be androgynous are changing. Not a fan, personally.
In order:
You are correct, that ‘Church’ does not equal ‘going to heaven.’ Since neither Hardon nor I ever made such an asinine proposition……
I bolded “their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive” for a reason. That happens to apply to baptized Catholics AND the non-baptized. So the splash (or not) is not a free-ride ticket in and of itself.
if he was speaking only of the Catholic Church
Yes, ONLY the Catholic Church provides the grace of salvation. I said Hardon’s text was concise and quoted all that was relevant.
why the Catholic church has not had their own Bible translation for at least 1600 years
You never heard of Douay-Rheims, first published in 1609 AD? Lots of info on translations here: https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide
The above link will tell you that you don’t HAVE to be a fan.
Begging your pardon!! I forgot about St Jerome’s “Vulgate” translation of the Bible from Greek , Aramaic, and Hebrew into Latin–the common man’s language back in 350 AD.
The Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate.
Do masses use the Douay-Rheims version? I have heard of it before, but I do not remember any reference that it is the Catholic approved version. An article I was just reading said that Catholic mass uses the New American Bible, and so suggested that Bible for a Catholic doing the shopping, but I know there are quite a few versions in the Catholic section of bookstores I have frequented. From what I have seen there are few restrictions on choice for Catholics and there are a lot that are approved. You can even use King James, though it is not suggested, having been edited by a Protestant.
Earlier you said ‘punt’ on this question and said God decides, but many of your later remarks have suggested that only the Catholic church gets people to heaven. I understand that God does not follow even the Catholic church, the church follows God, but I ask again.
Is the official stance of the Catholic church that only Catholics go to heaven? And with this in mind:
“Yes, ONLY the Catholic Church provides the grace of salvation.”
Do you believe that only Catholics get to heaven? It is important have that answer because, for example, when Hardon uses the term ‘church’ I know he is only referring to the Catholic church if you answer the question. If the Catholic stance is wishy-washy on it and officially has the ‘only God knows’ stance, Hardon’s use of the term church could mean several Christian churches. I know how to read your words with a firm answer to the question, if you see what I mean.
How many times must I say the same thing? Man proposes, God disposes. Hardon’s complete answer is mine. And the Catholic church provides the grace for salvation. No Prot church does, period.